Allan Harvey, a believing and practicing Christian and a practicing scientist

Troy Britain, a fellow opponent of creation science from my CompuServe days.
It turns out that we both got started with creation science in much the same way: by deciding that there must be something to it after all, which led to studying it, which led to our discovery of the truth about it.

Video, quoted by Kent Hovind, which claims 75% of Christian children losing their faith.

Ed Statzer, An Embarrassing Week for Christians Sharing Fake News: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. You embarrass us all when you do., Christianity Today, SOCIAL MEDIA, 13 July 2015.

"Must you go on 'speaking for God' when He never once has said the things that you are putting in His mouth?
Does God want your help if you are going to twist the truth for Him?
Be careful that He doesn't find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool God as well as men?
No, you will be in serious trouble with Him if you use lies to try to help Him out.
Doesn't His majesty strike terror to your heart? How can you do this thing?
These tremendous statements you have made have about as much value as ashes. Your defense of God is as fragile as a clay vase!"

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or
the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one
who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain
reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous
and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking
of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures,
should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the
unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west,
can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

"And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because
of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is
to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts;
and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance,
to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save.
For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in
making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how,
then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe
in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal,
and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous
assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those
very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or
by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say
what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these
presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their
silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of
being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of
our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless,
so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring
forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute
to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and
they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they
quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."

"As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ‘the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said—that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not ‘evidence’."

...

"But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a ‘legitimate’ excuse to reject Christ.
And all we did at that point was to publish an ‘advice’ article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being ‘slaughtered’ in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?"

...

" ... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were ‘admirable’ and ‘showed integrity’ in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments."

Muddying the water?

It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians
and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences'
in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically
literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation
evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not
worth listening to.

Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps
tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they
have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen
the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly,
the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.

We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging
and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided
efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing
people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!

At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being
untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three
charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims
that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that
Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false.
Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters
of fact.

Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its
implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin
(say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological
features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of
the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number
of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they
assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view
that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil
record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals.
It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the
available evidence -- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history,
among other things.

In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have
failed those tests.

. . .

What counts is the epistemic status of Creationism, not the cognitive idiosyncrasies of the creationists. Because many of the theses of Creationism are testable, the mind set of creationists has no bearing in law or in fact on the merits of Creationism.

. . .

Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them. The core issue is not whether Creationism satisfies some undemanding and highly controversial definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether the existing evidence provides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory than for Creationism. Once that question is settled, we will know what belongs in the classroom and what does not. Debating the scientific status of Creationism (especially when "science" is construed in such an unfortunate manner) is a red herring that diverts attention away from the issues that should concern us.

...the soundness of creation-science can and must be separated from all
questions about the dogmatism of creationists. Once we make that rudimentary
separation, we discover both (a) that creation-science is testable and
falsifiable, and (b) that creation-science has been tested and falsified --
insofar as any theory can be said to be falsified. But, as I pointed out in
the earlier essay, that damning indictment cannot be drawn so long as we
confuse Creationism and creationists to such an extent that we take the
creationists' mental intransigence to entail the immunity of creationist theory
from empirical confrontation.

"But my heart goes out to those well-meaning mamas and papas who send their
children to the "God's World" [creation science] class. Now the stupid children are safe
enough; they will just laugh at evolution and be happy fools for the rest of
their days. But the parents of the smart children live in dread of the day
that they know will come, when their child comes home from school and says:
'Today I learned what evolution really is and YOU LIED TO ME! If you lied to
me about that, then what else did you lie to me about? Did you lie about the
Resurrection? About Sin and Redemption? About loving my neighbor? Was it
all just lies? How could I ever believe you again?'

"To all those well-meaning mamas and papas, I say that this book [indicating the "God's World" creation science textbook], this book is full of lies. If you can only defend
your faith by lying about what others believe, then you stop right there.
Your faith is doomed. The best of your children will not follow you. You are the Last Generation."

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and
inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them
interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole.
. . .
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

"IF you have things that are reproducing their kind; IF there
are sometimes random variations, nevertheless, in the offspring;
IF such variations can be inherited; IF some such variations can
sometimes confer an advantage on their owners; IF there is
competition between the reproducing entities -- IF there is an
overproduction so that not all will be able to survive to produce
offspring themselves -- then these entities will get better at
reproducing their kind. Nature acts as a selective breeder in
these circumstances: the stock cannot help but improve."

"Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a
naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural
origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to
suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward
an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it.
Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving
up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry
advocates."

"Since then, I have corresponded with several Christians who have traveled
the same path as I have. One thing that is always agreed upon is the damage
young-earth creationism can do to souls; how many believers they have seen
fall away. We have been taught that the Bible demands a young earth
interpretation and when the facts of nature become inescapable - our faith
becomes shattered! My pastor was wrong, the opposite was the case. If "R"
had been offered the truth from the beginning, he would never have experienced
the turmoil he went through. When "R" could no longer deny that the universe
was billions of years old, the only option left for him was to deny the Bible.
How many others have been disheartened in like manner?"

Paul Ellwanger, author of the "Balanced Treatment" model bill
on which Arkansas Act 590 was based, from the closing of
a letter written to Tom Bethell, which was admitted as evidence and cited
by Judge Overton in his Decision of the Court:

"... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating
games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."

"Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the
creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this,
then I don't want to have any part of it."

"It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and
evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It
is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its
earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth
and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism
and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply
taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical
materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science.
Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they
have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the
literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and
reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it."

[After critiquing the moondust claims in Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism
(1974) and in Richard Milton's The Facts of Life (1992), both of which were
based solely on a 1960 article in Scientific American: ]
"Does the failure of these authors to be up to date really matter ? Yes, for
several reasons. First of all, Christians should be concerned about the
truth. The God we are committed to is the God of truth (John 15:26). Of all
people, Christians should be most punctilious about using only those
arguments that are based on sound methods of scholarship and the best
evidence available. This is a matter of obedient Christian discipleship, not
simply a desire to look good in the eyes of other scholars. Secondly,
following from this, it is dishonouring to God when Christian scholars are
found to be using sloppy arguments based on out-of-date evidence - and I know
secular scholars who have little respect for Christianity because of this.

"Finally, it is a matter of considerable pastoral and evangelistic
importance. Christian scholars who wrongly claim to be presenting sound
'scientific' arguments are misleading their fellow Christians who read their
books. Most of these readers do not have either the opportunity or the
inclination to check up on the reliability of the arguments used and evidence
presented. Some of those readers may in time be stumbled in their faith
because of their misplaced confidence in what they have read. Christian
students who, with more zeal than wisdom, confidently confront lecturers with
arguments culled from books like "Scientific Creationism" have sometimes
been made to look foolish when the lecturer has been able to show that the
argument does not stand up to the evidence, even the evidence available when
it was first put forward. That has not only shaken the faith of the
Christians, but Undermined their witness to their fellow students. Perhaps
publishers of books on 'scientific creationism', and the managers of
bookshops which sell them, ought to consider putting a spiritual health
warning on them."

"It would be a disaster for well meaning Christian parents to spend a large
amount of money to finance their child's education so that they may attend a
private Christian college, only to find out it killed their trust of the
Bible.
...
"Of the schools in Southern California that replied [to questions about whether
science department took a stand on whether God used evolution to create and how
old the earth was], Ken Ham said only
Master's College and Christian Heritage College took a stand to trust Genesis
(I am sure Southern California College in Costa Mesa would pass this test
too). Parents, be very careful and check out where you are sending your
precious children."

This in spite of my having pointed out to him repeatedly in our email correspondence how the teaching of creation science is what kills faith.

The main downfall of Creation Science is that it is combined with a belief in YEC, and generally with a belief that YEC is required for salvation.

Because of this the evidence suggests that those who ascribe to Creation Science, esp. those who promote it, tend to:

Drive Christians to become atheists, agnostics and deists,

Become severely self-deluded and/or morally degenerate,

Engage in slander.

"We don't know why the evidence is the way it is but we believe in the literal understanding of Genesis." may be a tougher line to teach than "the worldly, atheistic scientists are all in a conspiracy / brainwashed / blinded by the devil" but if

It has been my experience in talking to agnostics and atheists that many were raised in fundamentalist churches and that the denial of the physical evidence that those churches engaged in was a significant reason for them leaving Christ.

"After receiving a B. S. in Physics I spent one year in graduate school
studying the philosophy of science. I entered the oil industry as a seismic
processer where I began to learn geology on the job. Before this education
in geology was complete, I published 27 articles and notes in the Creation
Research Society Quarterly,
presented a paper at the first International Conference on Creationism, and
ghost wrote the evolution section in Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics
Should Consider Christianity. During this period I switched sub-disciplines
within geophysics and began to interpret seismic data. There was a major
problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had
been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching
began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not
willing to listen to the problems.

"By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted
creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year
withdrawal from publication. Eventually my doubts about the reliability
grew so large that
I was driven to the edge of becoming an atheist."

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"'From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,'

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, 'Wait a minute. There has to be one!' But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

"And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist."

Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research in a letter (emphasis is mine):

"The evolution model, in general terms, is not just Darwinism, but any
naturalistic concept of origins (including most of the world's religions,
ancient and modern). The creation model, in general terms, is not just
the Biblical record, but any cosmogony which postulates a transcendent
personal Creator to account for the universe and its basic components.
Evolution says one CAN explain the origin and development of all things
in terms of continuing, natural processes. Creation says one CANNOT so
explain them."

"There seems to be no possible way to avoid the conclusion that
if the Bible and Christianity are true at all, the geologic ages must be
rejected altogether."

John Morris as reported at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism:
("The 1986 International Conference on Creationism" by Robert Schadewald, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 5, September/October 1986, NCSE, pp 8-14.)

"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."

John L. Groenlund, What is the Purpose of Creation Ministry,
in Institute for Creation Research Back to Genesis Report No. 78, June 1995:

"I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical
Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution
debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."

Reported by Robert Schadewald at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism:
("The 1986 International Conference on Creationism" by Robert Schadewald, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 5, September/October 1986, NCSE, pp 8-14.)

"[Glenn R. Morton, practicing petroleum geologist and staunch creationist,
asked John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)], 'How old is
the earth?' 'If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no
meaning.' Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian
Heritage College [which formerly housed the ICR], and that all of them suffered
severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geological
facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis."

Evangelical Christian and Ph.D. candidate in geology, Steven Schimmrich,
Kenneth Ham and the Dinosaurs (site currently under construction):

"'Why should I care?'

"If you're not a Christian, you should care because creationists are trying
to get this type of garbage taught in public schools as "science." This is
not, by any stretch of the imagination, science and teaching it as such is
the equivalent of teaching astrology in astronomy classes or crystal healing
in geology classes. If you care about the education of our children, then
you should care about this issue.

"If you are a Christian, you should care because this stuff is being taught
in Christian schools (students from Judah Christian School in Champaign,
Illinois were taken to the Answers in Genesis seminar). What happens when
these children learn more about science and find out that they were lied to -
that dinosaurs and man could never have coexisted, that there is abundant
evidence for an old earth and no evidence whatsoever for a young one, and
that the fossil record does not support a Biblical flood model? Will they
conclude that they were lied to about other things as well? Lied to about
Jesus Christ and the resurrection?

"I think Christians should be scrupulously honest and above reproach when they
are engaged in scholarly pursuits such as science. Instead they have a
reputation for being a bunch of loons. It harms the cause of Christ."

Evangelical Christian and Ph.D. candidate in geology, Steven Schimmrich,
What is a Creationist? (site currently under construction):

"I've read many of the materials written by young-earth creationists
such as Steve Austin, Thomas Barnes, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, Ken
Ham, Henry Morris, John Morris, Gary Parker, and Harold Slusher
among others. I'm also very familiar with the material put out by
Answers in Genesis,
the Institute for Creation Research
and the Creation Research Society.
In addition, I've also attended lectures and seminars by several well-known young-earth creationists.

"In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and
ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They
totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence
contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most
basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are
aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I
don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the
accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and
has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope
geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years
studying K-Ar dating in granites?"

Evangelical Christian and Ph.D. candidate in geology, Steven Schimmrich,
What is a Creationist? (site currently under construction):

"In science, skepticism is a virtue. If the claims of young-earth creationists
are true, virtually all of modern science is grossly in error. If you want to
overturn all of science, you had better have extremely compelling evidence.
I have found, in my own personal experience, that when many creationist claims
are critically examined they completely fall apart."

Evangelical Christian and Ph.D. candidate in geology, Steven Schimmrich,
What is a Creationist? (site currently under construction):

"I do believe that there are some real problems in evolutionary biology --
primarily in the areas of abiogenesis and human evolution. I also believe
that there is evidence for "intelligent design" in the world that is ignored
by many scientists because of the axiom of methodological naturalism in
scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it's difficult to discuss such issues
with most scientists because the waters have been muddied so much by the
poor-quality work done by the young-earth creationists. I also believe that
the issue of creationism has prevented many people in science from seriously
investigating Christianity because of their mistaken belief that you have to
"check your brain at the door" before becoming a Christian."

She revealed that many colleges, especially those in the "Bible Belt", do not teach
evolution to their biology students, so many degreed biologists out there have had no
training in evolution. Then she related her own experiences teaching the
lower-division physical anthropology course, in which she definitely did cover evolution.
Every semester, a few biology seniors would enroll in her class looking for an
easy A. In every such case, at some point in the semester, she would see the "ah-ha!" light
suddenly come on in those students' heads as they said to themselves, "So that's
why ..." Dr. Scott offered this as living confirmation of Dobzhansky's famous quote, that
nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

"There is a very real danger in these pronouncements [by Christian sources,
including the ICR, that if evolution is true then neither the Bible nor
Christianity can be true]. When one bases
their faith upon the rise or fall of a scientific theory, they are on real
"sinking sand." When I left for college, I believed these sorts
of either/or statements - many people do. If I had learned the facts of
geology or biology or physics or astronomy or anthropology or geochronology
or ... under the teaching of someone other than a godly professor, the
crisis to my faith would have been much more severe. I feel it is very
unlikely that I would be a Christian today. I would probably be a bitter
agnostic and not because of science but because my Christianity set me
up to fail.

"I suppose that is why this Creation/Evolution issue is so important
to me. I know that I sometimes talk about this topic so much that others
get tired of hearing it. I know my wife does and I'm sure that my pastor
does too. But when one has a close call with spiritual death, it becomes
a critical issue. Every year, I see young Christians go away to college
with the idea that science, in one form or another, is some sort of Satanic
conspiracy. Sooner or later they end up struggling with their faith in
the light of new knowledge. Some will survive because their faith is strong
enough to overcome any evidence - many do not. I have met some bitter people
who left the church because they believe that their religion "lied
to them". I hate seeing this when I believe that it is so unnecessary.
We as Christians need to be real clear about what is important to our faith
and what is not."

"My concern is what can we do to correct the misconceptions that people have (both people like Albert and some Christians) that the findings of science (geology, astronomy, biological sciences [including evolution]) are incompatible with Christianity, that embracing Jesus means rejecting science. And it’s a serious problem. It’s serious because there are people like Albert out there who know science, and we put stumbling blocks in the way of them even considering Jesus. You hear missionaries talk about unreached people groups; here’s a group of people that aren’t hearing the Gospel because they can’t get past the huge credibility barrier put up by the things some Christians say about science.

"But it’s also serious because of its effects on Christians, and I’m especially worried about children. If we teach our children that they have to choose between science and faith, we're setting them up for a fall. Because some of them are going to grow up and study the real world God made and learn that what the church has told them about science is false. If we’ve taught them that the Gospel or the truth of the Bible depends on those things, then its like the house built on sand, their foundation gets washed away, and their faith may go with it. I think Jesus had some words about those who set people up to stumble on issues like this: [Luke 17:1-2] “Stumbling blocks are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

"So, how do we give our children a foundation that won’t crumble the first time they take a college science class, and how do we keep science from being a stumbling block to people like Albert? I’ve thought about these things a lot, and I’ve decided that at the root of our problems are two fundamental mistakes, and both of them involve taking our human philosophy and letting it dictate to God what he can and can’t do. I hope you’d all agree that dictating to God isn’t a good idea."

"“God of the Gaps” theology divides the world into 2 categories. There’s things we can’t explain (gaps in our understanding where we say “that’s where God is” [in primitive times thunder and lightning were gaps]). The second category is things where we do have a natural explanation, and therefore God isn’t in those places. The result of “God of the Gaps” theology is that every time science finds a natural explanation for something, one more gap closes up and God gets squeezed closer to nonexistence. This forces Christians who have this theology to attack science in order to make room for God.

"Maybe my most important message today is that this “God of the Gaps” theology is wrong. The reason it’s wrong is that God is sovereign over nature. (Take-home point #2) The Bible tells us that everything that exists is upheld by God’s power. God isn’t just in the gaps, he’s the creator and sustainer of the whole fabric of creation, including the things we call “natural.” So what does God’s sovereignty over nature mean for our apologetics? It means that science isn’t any threat to Christianity. Scientific results don’t count as points against God, they’re just uncovering how God did things. It means that if somebody has the idea that some scientific explanation (evolution or whatever) has eliminated God, the wrong thing to do is to argue against the science – that’s defending the God of the Gaps and it’s a losing strategy (unfortunately, it’s the strategy of a lot of Christians). The right thing to do is to remember that God is sovereign over nature, that the atheist argument that natural explanations mean God is absent isn’t science, it’s completely unjustified philosophy. We can tell people that natural explanations may eliminate the God of the Gaps, but they don’t eliminate the Christian God."

"First, we can get our own house in order. We can learn to read the Bible with its purposes in mind, and not try to ask it questions it isn’t trying to answer. We can reject any false Gospel that depends on a particular interpretation of how God created. We can affirm God’s sovereignty over nature and reject the “God of the Gaps.” If we can keep our children away from that horrible teaching that says Genesis 1 has to be true according to somebody’s narrow literal interpretation or else we might as well throw our Bibles in the trash, and if we can get them to understand that scientific explanations don’t mean God didn’t do something, they just tell us how God did something, they’ll be much better prepared to face the world.

"Second, we can be ready to give people good answers. If they say that science contradicts the Bible, we can tell them that the Bible isn’t making any scientific claims about those things. If they think that scientific explanations have eliminated God, rather than argue against the science, we can point out that natural explanations of how things happened don’t eliminate the Christian God, because our God is in charge of the whole picture, not just the gaps where we don’t have explanations. If they want to argue “creation vs. evolution,” we can point out that it’s not a “versus” – those aren’t mutually exclusive opposites, they’re answers to two different questions. “Creation” is the answer to “What is all this?” All this is the creation of God. “Evolution” is the answer, or a plausible answer, to the different question, the less important question, “How did God do it?”

Finally, we need to remember that these science things are not the real issue. Jesus Christ is the issue. These arguments are stumbling blocks, obstacles in the road to be moved aside so people can hear the Gospel."

... one day (cir. 1989) I was chatting with a new guy and somehow the subject of evolution came up.

As it turned out the "new guy" was a Christian fundamentalist and young earth creationist. Beliefs that my fairly liberal Christian upbringing hadn't exposed me to. He said things that flew in the face of everything I'd ever heard or read before. He was so certain and brought up so many things that I began to wonder if there might be something to what he was saying. I started to become concerned about how the scientists could be as messed up as he was saying they were. So I started looking into it, wondering if maybe there might be something to all this "creationism" stuff.

I looked into it all right! I started looking at creationist literature (as I recall Darwin's Enigma (1988) by the late Luther Sunderland was the first creationist book I ever owned, it was given to me by a pastor), and I also started looking the writings of scientists and at their responses to the claims of creationists. And the more I looked into it, the more pissed off I got. Claim after claim made by the creationists turned out to be distortions, half-truths and down right fabrications. Sometime this seemed to be due to innocent ignorance of how science works or of the facts. However, more often it seemed to be willful ignorance and occasionally even to be deliberate distortions of the truth.

I was incensed. I had been misled and people who espoused a devotion to "Truth" misled me. And there were people who were supposed to be of God. And not only had they mislead me, but they were continuing to mislead others.

From then on I was hooked on the subject. I became determined not to let the misinformed and/or dishonest claims of creationists to go unanswered. I began reading scientific literature voraciously. I became a regular at the public library, looking for everything I could on the subject of evolution and creationism.

It is YOUR job—yes YOURS—to check the facts. Yes, these websites should do that as well, but most are more concerned with gaining your page view than growing your credibility.

Remember, Snopes is your friend. Go and check out these stories before you share them on social media.

There are real issues about religious liberty right now (and more coming). Posting links to fake ones just makes all of us look (rightly) gullible.

How To Fix the False Rumor You Spread

Post a retraction.

Really.

Do it.

It's not that hard. It will sting a little bit because you'll have to admit you were wrong, but it's good for you. I promise.

Just something like this would suffice: "Hey friends, I posted a story about _______ this weekend, and it turns out it wasn't true! Be on guard and don't believe everything you read out there! I’ll be more careful next time."
You can both admit you were wrong and look out for your friends, telling them to be alert for more fake stories, because these weren't the first and I’m sure they won’t be the last.

Integrity is important for the Christian. The Scriptures are clear, especially in the Proverbs.

Proverbs 2:20-21 says:

So follow the way of good people,
and keep to the paths of the righteous.
For the upright will inhabit the land,
and those of integrity will remain in it;

Later, Proverbs 28:18 says:

The one who lives with integrity will be helped,
but one who distorts right and wrong
will suddenly fall.

Do the right thing. Protect your friends from being tricked like you were.

Don’t excuse it by saying, “Well, it might be true.” Or, “Well, there is something like that." "Or, well, it will be true soon."

No, you were wrong. You fell for a hoax. Say it and move on.

You were deceived. It's ok to admit that. You don't have to try to cover your tracks and make some sort of lame excuse to make yourself look better.

Have some humility, be willing to admit someone fooled you, and move on.

Posting a link to a story about a for-profit wedding chapel on public land won't make it any better because even that was resolved—just say you were wrong and move on.

Seriously...

Be less gullible next time.

Wisdom is valuable:

Get wisdom—
how much better it is than gold!
And get understanding—
it is preferable to silver. (Prov 16:16)

"But," you may think, "I'm not wise. I get fooled by this stuff all the time." That's okay, Scripture accounts for people like us. James 1:5 says:

Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to all generously and without criticizing, and it will be given to him.

Finally, the Bible makes it clear:

You must not steal. You must not act deceptively or lie to one another. (Lev 19:11)

Lying is wrong. Don't lie, even if you don't mean to. And make it right if you do.

Don't Post What You Can't Confirm

You may say, "But what if I can’t tell if the story is fake or not?"

I've given you several ways to check the veracity of a story, but if that does not work, there is just one solution: don't post it.

If you have not, will not, or cannot confirm a story, do not share it. As Christians, we have a higher standard than even the journalist. We aren’t protecting the reputation of an organization or a website, we bear the name of our King.

If our friends and families cannot trust us with this type of news, many will not listen when we seek to share the good news of the gospel.

Two unnamed contemporaries of Darwin quoted in Andrew Dickson White,
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Second
printing, 1917, p. 71-72:

"If the Darwinian theory is true, Genesis is a lie, the whole framework
of the book of life falls to pieces, and the revelation of God to man,
as we Christians know it, is a delusion and a snare."
"If this hypothesis be true, then is the Bible an unbearable fiction; ... than have
Christians for nearly two thousand years been duped by a monstrous lie.
... Darwin requires us to disbelieve the authoritative word of the Creator."

Satan, being the Great Deceiver, never creates a lie by itself, but rather always creates lies in
pairs. The first and lesser lie is intended to alarm the faithful and to drive
them to embrace the second and more pernicious lie, trapping them there. That Christian viewed
both creation science and evolution as lies, but evolution was the lesser lie which Satan uses
to frighten Christians and to drive them to embrace the truly pernicious lie, creation science.